Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

You see bjimmy24, I see that you're a thinker! I have no problems with people wanting to be around others who share their same ethnicity, mixed-ethnicities, or whatever! I DON'T consider this behavior to be racist in any shape, form, or fashion.

About the government's self-imposed and enforced social engineering experiments on people, well, that's totally a whole other discussion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bjimmy24

The government is definitely to blame but quite a lot. The federal government, local government, is all very nefarious and into social engineering. Wish more people weren't so naive. But I'm responding to the idea that by people freely moving to be with people more like them is racist. It's not.

The busing crisis is what made Boston famous for its racism, along with Tom Yawkey's Red Sox. My question was this: Why Boston?

I posted earlier in the thread re. the politics behind it and Boston being "made an example of" by the feds, which predictably breeds bitterness and resentment. Boston is also an old old city where roots run deep in the neighborhoods. And due to other cultural and ethnic factors, I think Bostonians have more of a tendency to stay and "defend their turf" as opposed to other more modern cities where the whites simply abandon their old neighborhoods for the suburbs. They wouldn't waste their time fighting because they don't have a neighborhood they feel a strong attachment to, at least relative to a city like Boston. Of course Boston had big white flight too, but many did stay behind.

I posted earlier in the thread re. the politics behind it and Boston being "made an example of" by the feds, which predictably breeds bitterness and resentment. Boston is also and old old city where roots run deep in the neighborhoods. And due to other cultural and ethnic factors, I think Bostonians have more of a tendency to stay and "defend their turf" as opposed to other more modern cities where the whites simply abandon their old neighborhoods for the suburbs. They wouldn't waste their time fighting because they don't have a neighborhood they feel a strong attachment to, at least relative to a city like Boston. Of course Boston had big white flight too, but many did stay behind.

Other places have been made examples of. Pasadena had federal orders. Richmond, Virginia, in the former Jim Crow South, had federal orders too. It is an old city like Boston. Not nearly as much violence as Boston. Now, the ethnic and cultural forces might be the main factor. That histrionics still gives Boston a bad reputation.

Georgia has its oddities. I can go into Atlanta proper and some of the inner ring suburbs(like Marietta, Decatur, Sandy Springs, Vinings, Smyrna) and things seem alright. Exurban areas like Paulding County, it feels quite crazy. Confederate flags still fly in a few places. It's like a different world. Atlanta doesn't have the same dynamics as Boston.

What I know comes from living in Georgia, particularly around the suburbs of Atlanta and making trips in Atlanta proper. The worst experiences with racism I've dealt with have rarely been in liberal areas. It has been mainly in conservative areas, particularly in the exurbs. Just my experiences. There were probably some persons who vote Democrat who have been racist towards me. Boston has a different dynamic going on.

The Southeast has its own issues with racial tensions. I speak from personal experience. I have lived in the Pacific Northwest and Texas as well. But for the sake if this argument, I will speak on the South. I kind of expect the South to have racial issues. Long history of slavery, Jim Crow racism, stuff like Bombingham, 3 Civil Rights workers murdered in Mississippi, Dr. King being murdered in Memphis, Little Rock 9, Bloody Sunday,etc. Long history of it and nothing left to the imagination.

East Coast cities seem to have an odd paradox with racial tensions. On one hand, most of the East Coast cities never had official Jim Crow policies. Many of those places would become cities where slaves would go to in order to escape slavery. On the other hand, racial tensions are there, many neighborhoods remain segregated. Boston in particular, from what I've read, remained like that for a while. While riots have occurred in the Midwest and the South, it seems more prevalent in the East Coast. From 1970 onward, several racial clashes have broken out in cities in New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Florida too.

I have personal proof to back this up. My family and me moved to a county that was around 95% White. This was in the mid/late 1990s. By the early 2000s, the Black population increased from about 3% to about 10%. I experienced alot of racism there. There are still people living there who fly Confederate flags from their yards. Why did the minority population increase there? Cost of living and geographic proximity. Alot of Blacks were coming from nearby counties with higher minority populations. It was also one of the fastest growing areas in the USA, being near Atlanta. I live on the western flank of metro Atlanta. Alot of Blacks were coming from the southern and western parts of metro Atlanta.

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.